The debates are over, and not one question was asked about energy, greenhouse gas policy, or oil sands. If you want to read what I would have asked each of the leaders, read on…
Year: 2011
My Latest on the Globe and Mail’s Economy Lab
Here’s how my latest post on Economy Lab at the Globe and Mail ends: “If you are going to let GHG policy influence your vote, you owe it to yourself to get engaged in the discussion and get beyond the easy sound bites.” If you want to read the beginning, click here.
More sophistication, please
Since Sunday’s release of the Liberal party platform and the non-announcement of a cap-and-trade program, the reaction in Alberta has been sadly predictable. Many people in the province seem to know exactly what will be in this policy, and they know that it will be bad news for Alberta. In fact, the Wild Rose Caucus has declared the policy to be the NEP 2.0, and they are quick to cite a TD-Suzuki-Pembina Institute report which shows that the costs of the particular cap-and-trade implementation they consider would be disproportionately felt in Alberta. The Sun seems to know that the policy will contain adjustments at the border for high-carbon products.
I would love to write a long post in this space and say that they are wrong. I would love to say that this policy will be good for Alberta. I would love to be able to talk about how it recognizes the critical role of Alberta’s energy and resource industries in Canada, and will not seek to disadvantage Alberta (and by extension Canada) to score short term political points. I would love to tell you that it will not place a disproportionately high price on carbon in Canada relative to climate leaders such as the EU. I’d love to say all of that, but I can’t because I simply don’t know what the policy will do because I don’t know what the policy is.
Liberals’ significant climate plan cloaked in silence
My second Globe and Mail Economy Lab post on the new Liberal Platform is available here. After this piece was posted, Liberal Senator Grant Mitchell posted a response to some of the questions I raised here. Rick Szostak posted another response detailing how revenues from the auction of permits would remain in Alberta here.
My rant: we need more than billboards. now.
Today was not a good day for the Alberta government’s PR machine. An editorial in the New York Times this weekend leads with the headline, “No to a New Tar Sands Pipeline.” Yes, they said tar sands. No, this was not some fringe, west-coast internet publication or a Greenpeace pamphlet, but the New York Times. Apparently Alberta’s message didn’t get through.
My Economy Lab debut
In case you missed it, I provided some background in response to Jack Layton’s comments today to the Globe and Mail’s Economy Lab. Check it out here.
Think the President supported your view of the oilsands?
President Obama’s speech yesterday had something in it for everybody, and the most remarkable thing for me on the day after the speech is that both the oil powers in Calgary and their usual allies the NRDC agreed that it was a positive development. At least the objections of Greenpeace USA restored some balance to the universe. I think, in many cases, interested parties were simply listening for what they wanted to hear.
The figure below shows a tag cloud of the top 50 words used in the President’s address. When you see words like clean, biofuels, reducing oil dependence, and alternative being used, that is generally not good news for the largest exporter of oil to the US. The words domestic oil production, drill, and clean coal are not generally on the positive side of the ENGO lexicon. I think that, as people digest the President’s remarks, people will realize that his remarks amount to a lot of aspiration, a little realism, some retail politics, and little else. In the end, I don’t think that it was really good news or bad news for anyone.
President Obama’s address (full text)
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you so much. Thank you, everybody. Everybody, please have a seat. Please have a seat. It is wonderful to be back at Georgetown.
EDIT: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS REMOVED
We meet here at a tumultuous time for the world. In a matter of months, we’ve seen regimes toppled. We’ve seen democracy take root in North Africa and in the Middle East. We’ve witnessed a terrible earthquake, a catastrophic tsunami, a nuclear emergency that has battered one of our strongest allies and closest friends in the world’s third-largest economy. We’ve led an international effort in Libya to prevent a massacre and maintain stability throughout the broader region.
And as Americans, we’re heartbroken by the lives that have been lost as a result of these events. We’re deeply moved by the thirst for freedom in so many nations, and we’re moved by the strength and the perseverance of the Japanese people. And it’s natural, I think, to feel anxious about what all of this means for us.
And one big area of concern has been the cost and security of our energy. Obviously, the situation in the Middle East implicates our energy security. The situation in Japan leads us to ask questions about our energy sources.
on retrofit subsidies, tax credits, and other expensive policies
It’s easy for people to have a knee-jerk reaction and support policies like the ecoEnergy Retrofit Initiative or US Production Tax Credits for Wind Energy. After all, we want people to have more efficient houses, and we want more renewable energy, don’t we? Well, yes, we probably do. Environmentalists and fiscal hawks should agree that each dollar spent on programs targeting these changes in our energy production and consumption decisions be spent effectively. Unfortunately, broad subsidies and tax credits do not meet that criterion very often.
An evening with Jack
Last night, I decided to head downtown the NDP campaign launch to hear Jack Layton speak, to local NDP candidates, and their supporters. (I was also caught on tape by Gloria Galloway of the Globe and Mail) For those of you who know my politics, you will likely be surprised to hear that went to NDP event at all. I was little surprised too.